# C_2019312EN.01004501.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/45

---

Action brought on 26 July 2019 — Nord Stream v Parliament and Council

(Case T-530/19)

(2019/C 312/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nord Stream AG (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: M. Raible, C. von Köckritz and J. von Andreae, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Directive (EU) 2019/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 17 April 2019 amending Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas, insofar as Article 1 (9) of this Directive introduced Article 49a (3) first sentence of Directive 2009/73 stipulating that ‘[d]ecisions pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be adopted by 24 May 2020’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Directive (EU) 2019/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 17 April 2019 amending Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas, insofar as Article 1 (9) of this Directive introduced Article 49a (3) first sentence of Directive 2009/73 stipulating that ‘[d]ecisions pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be adopted by 24 May 2020’;

| — | order the European Parliament and/or the Council of the European Union to pay the Applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and/or the Council of the European Union to pay the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the deadline for obtaining potential derogation decisions under the newly inserted Article 49a of Directive 2009/73 is excessively short and thereby violates the general legal principle of proportionality as laid down in article 5(4) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the deadline for obtaining potential derogation decisions under the newly inserted Article 49a of Directive 2009/73 is excessively short and thereby violates the general legal principle of proportionality as laid down in article 5(4) TEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the amending Directive must be partially annulled for violation of Article 296 TFEU since it is vitiated by a failure to state reasons for the introduction of the excessively short deadline in the contested provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the amending Directive must be partially annulled for violation of Article 296 TFEU since it is vitiated by a failure to state reasons for the introduction of the excessively short deadline in the contested provision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested provision violates the principle of legitimate expectations as it unjustly limits the possibility to obtain derogations under the newly introduced Article 49a of Directive 2009/73. The possibility of obtaining such derogations is legally required in order to protect the legitimate expectations of operators of offshore third country pipelines which were completed and in operation when the amending directive entered into force. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested provision violates the principle of legitimate expectations as it unjustly limits the possibility to obtain derogations under the newly introduced Article 49a of Directive 2009/73. The possibility of obtaining such derogations is legally required in order to protect the legitimate expectations of operators of offshore third country pipelines which were completed and in operation when the amending directive entered into force.

---